Murray v. Governor, State of Florida

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:24-cv-1993-CEM-DCI

GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,

Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 29), to which Plaintiff submitted a Response (Doc. 30). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 37), recommending that the Motion be granted in part to the extent that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed for lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, (Doc. 37 at 12). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 38). Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32), to which Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 35), and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 33), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 34). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s Objections will be overruled, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, the remaining Motions will be denied as moot, and the Complaint will be dismissed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made. See

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Objections prove as inscrutable as his Complaint. Rather than objecting to specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning in the R&R, the

Court is instead treated primarily to Plaintiff’s stream of consciousness on the ills of the justice system in this country. Apart from generally disagreeing with the outcome of the R&R, Plaintiff makes no argument supported by legal authority that the Magistrate Judge actually erred. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 1272, 1287

n.13 (11th Cir. 2007) (refusing to address a “perfunctory and underdeveloped argument” with no citation to legal authority and collecting cases). After review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72, and considering the Objections, the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order.

a. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. b. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of standing and due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. c. The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED as moot. 3. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 33) is DENIED as moot. 4. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 25, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD@E

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party